From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13783 invoked by alias); 1 May 2005 23:25:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13630 invoked from network); 1 May 2005 23:25:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 May 2005 23:25:51 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DSNos-00019y-Sb; Sun, 01 May 2005 19:25:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 23:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] gdbserver: Add support for qGetTLSAddr packet Message-ID: <20050501232550.GB4311@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041206152002.551f8d46.kevinb@redhat.com> <20050224205324.GD11751@nevyn.them.org> <20050225093429.1ea6e639@ironwood.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050225093429.1ea6e639@ironwood.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 09:34:29AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:53:24 -0500 > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 03:20:02PM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > > > The patch below adds qGetTLSAddr packet support to gdbserver. > > > > > > I wrote this to demonstrate / test the support that I've added on the > > > GDB side. I suspect some configury tweaking may be needed to test for > > > the existence of td_thr_tls_get_addr() in libthread_db.c. (If it > > > doesn't exist, then get_thread_local_addr() should be ifdef'd to return > > > a 0 status.) > > > > > > If it's otherwise okay, I'm willing to make the necessary configury > > > changes. If it's not okay for some other reason, I'd like to address > > > that first... > > > > This should go through the target vector, instead of adding #ifdefs. > > Then linux-low.c can handle whether thread-db is present or not. > > > > Is this patch still current, or did the protocol evolve since the last > > posting? > > The protocol did change, but the patch is still current. (The protocol > change simply removed the extra load module related parameters that Linux > didn't use anyway.) Hi Kevin, Rereading my response, I'm not sure if this was clear: the patch is not OK without a change to use gdbserver's target vector. If you won't have time to do this, let me know, and I'll try to find a chance to do it myself. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC